• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

can someone please explain to me the difference

idav

Being
Premium Member
in light of the same sex marriage ban in NC
can someone please explain to me the difference
between...

"i can get married but you can't"
and
"i can practice my religion but you can't"

Thats cause the christians want to discriminate against all the pagans and wiccans wanting to have same sex marriages and wild orgies. People be player hating.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Willamena, do I understand you to be saying that getting married to the person you love represents the right "to do whatever I want"?
Obviously the OP is looking at the comparison and seeing an issue of personal freedom. The rights loosely grouped as personal freedom, though, have to be interpreted in light of a bigger picture, like in this case the voice of the people. We can all think whatever we like, but we can't do whatever we like; unless we act as a people to make government work, it will work despite us.

Edit: Government isn't "them." Government is us: we, the people.
 
Last edited:

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
They are offset by the right to vote and the rights of the state to govern the people. I'm not sure about the United States, but in Canada's Charter we have a statement that says that no right shall "abrogate or derogate" from any other. If this is what the people voted, then this is what the people want and the state is right to make it law, until and unless the people vote again.
But that is the whole point of Canada's charter of rights is to protect individual rights from majority votes. What they just did in N.Carolina would be as if we had a referendum to remove individual rights. This is not democracy, it is tyranny of the majority.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
it's anarchy if one doesn't own their culpability
That's ambiguous. If I read it right, my response is that anarchy is full personal culpability, i.e. not held to any authority, like law, i.e. nothing we have in the world today.

But what did you mean?
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
That's ambiguous.


If I read it right, my response is that anarchy is full personal culpability, i.e. not held to any authority, like law, i.e. nothing we have in the world today.

But what did you mean?

when i read anarchy i understand disorder.

everyone has the right to do whatever they want as everyone cannot disown their personal responsibility/culpability for their actions as that would bring disorder/anarchy.
having said that...when you asked me
What right do you see being violated? The right to "do whatever I want"?
in essence, the answer would be yes.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
fantôme profane;2918922 said:
But that is the whole point of Canada's charter of rights is to protect individual rights from majority votes. What they just did in N.Carolina would be as if we had a referendum to remove individual rights. This is not democracy, it is tyranny of the majority.

this...
 

beerisit

Active Member
fantôme profane;2918922 said:
But that is the whole point of Canada's charter of rights is to protect individual rights from majority votes. What they just did in N.Carolina would be as if we had a referendum to remove individual rights. This is not democracy, it is tyranny of the majority.
Democracy is exactly that.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
when i read anarchy i understand disorder.

everyone has the right to do whatever they want as everyone cannot disown their personal responsibility/culpability for their actions as that would bring disorder/anarchy.
having said that...when you asked me

in essence, the answer would be yes.
Anarchy is "the right to do whatever you want," or to put it another way, do as you will (as it hurt no one).
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
how does same sex marriages hurt/affect anyone who isn't involved in the marriage?
as in how does one practicing their religion hurt/affect anyone who isn't involved in the religion, unless it is a part of their religion to hurt/affect those that are not involved in the religion?

seems to me this is the the difference
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
in light of the same sex marriage ban in NC
can someone please explain to me the difference
between...

"i can get married but you can't"
and
"i can practice my religion but you can't"

Same sex marriage isn't a protected right.
Religion is.

You can implement it at the Federal level.
In the absence of Federal protection,
You can implement it at the State level.

The majority can vote in laws with the exception of laws that violate the protected rights of individuals. You'd need to get that right protected at some level. Otherwise majority rules.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Same sex marriage isn't a protected right.
Religion is.

You can implement it at the Federal level.
In the absence of Federal protection,
You can implement it at the State level.

The majority can vote in laws with the exception of laws that violate the protected rights of individuals. You'd need to get that right protected at some level. Otherwise majority rules.

i understand that :) but what i'm trying to have explained is the fundamental difference of why same sex marriages are not protected as religion is, since they both involve a persons right to choose.

i'll put it like this,
it is understood that the intent to harm someone is not a protected right
why would same sex marriage fall under the same umbrella as the intent to harm someone
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
i understand that :) but what i'm trying to have explained is the fundamental difference of why same sex marriages are not protected as religion is, since they both involve a persons right to choose.

i'll put it like this,
it is understood that the intent to harm someone is not a protected right
why would same sex marriage fall under the same umbrella as the intent to harm someone

You are looking for reason?
The opinion of the majority doesn't have to be reasonable.

I think a majority of people are persuaded by rhetoric not fact or logic. People skilled in rhetoric influence the opinion of the masses. Some get especially skilled in rhetoric, among them many religious leaders.

It's kind of amazing how one well written speech can control huge numbers of people. Facts and logic fail in the presence of great rhetoric.
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
in light of the same sex marriage ban in NC
can someone please explain to me the difference
between...

"i can get married but you can't"
and
"i can practice my religion but you can't"

Why, was it allowed in NC before ?
 
Top